• Luke1i1
    14
    Hi all,

    So I have recently been contemplating how certain things undertaken by members of society can really be perceived as "good" (which in my experience they are) when they effect future generations in a negative manner.

    For example, I often hear of people who work with the elderly "doing good" by the very act of helping the older person, whether it's through physical rehabilitation following an illness/fall or just undertaking their housework etc.

    Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is not "doing good" as clearly these acts benefit the individual in question, however I just want to draw your thoughts to what I perceive as the downside to this. In my mind it would take resources (however small) to undertake these "good" acts (fuel to power the electrical outlets to power the vacuum or to power the building where the physical therapy takes place). I appreciate that the amount of resources used is very small (practically non existent) however there is still going to be resources spent nonetheless.

    The issue that I have with this is that any additional pollution (or harmful result of undertaking the task) will mean future governments will take longer to resolve the issue (in this instance pollution) which will then effect the future generations. My logic behind this is as follows. Resources are used to assist people of today. This may mean more pollution is caused through undertaking this act. Although small the amount of pollution will add to current levels meaning if the government wants to solve (or work towards solving) climate change they will have to spend resources on trying to counteract the harm done today (even if only small) which will take longer then if we had not caused the pollution in the first instance (by not helping the elderly person). This will mean that other concerns that governments have to deal with in the future will get delayed even if only by a small amount. As a result in time more people will suffer.

    Now you may argue that this will only affect a small population of people, however as more time will have to be spent solving the additional pollution caused today this will mean that every future concern would be lagging behind.

    Basically by using resources today and creating even just a small amount of pollution it will mean it takes longer to resolve the issues that pollution bring and other issues that the government wish to look into in the future due to more time being spent on issues created today. Therefore how can we say that we are really "doing good" when more people in the future suffer?

    Hopefully this makes sense, if not please ask and I will try to clarify.

    Many thanks

    Luke
  • Rich
    3.2k
    Therefore how can we say that we are really "doing good" when more people in the future suffer?Luke1i1

    We can't say anything it's "doing good" because short term and long term consequences are always uncertain (unintended consequences). In retrospect one might say that some event turned out good for so-and-so and not so good for someone else. This too may change with the passage of time.

    Which brings us to the Daoist story of a farmer and his son:

    There was a farmer whose horse ran away. That evening the neighbors gathered to commiserate with him since this was such bad luck. He said, “May be.” The next day the horse returned, but brought with it six wild horses, and the neighbors came exclaiming at his good fortune. He said, “May be.” And then, the following day, his son tried to saddle and ride one of the wild horses, was thrown, and broke his leg.

    Again the neighbors came to offer their sympathy for the misfortune. He said, “May be.” The day after that, conscription officers came to the village to seize young men for the army, but because of the broken leg the farmer’s son was rejected. When the neighbors came in to say how fortunately everything had turned out, he said, “May be.”
  • Wirius
    10
    What you may not be considering is the scarcity of resources.

    When resources are plentiful, it is good to spend them to help people. When they are scarce, spending them is not seen as "good".

    An example is triage. Lets say that 3 people are wounded, and if not treated will die. There is a young person, a middle aged person, and an old person. To simplify, they all need the exact same treatment, nothing more.

    If you only have enough resources to treat 2 people, most people understand it would be good to treat the young one and the middle aged one, and let the older person die. However, if you have the resources for all 3, and do not expect to need any more resources or find more injured in the near future, it is good to treat all three, and considered wrong not to treat the elderly.

    Essentially, the wealth of a society is marked by how it treats its "lesser valued" citizens. In a society that deplores their poor, you find a poor society. In a society that assists and helps its poor, you find the wealthiest nations on Earth.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.